Google compares Apple to 'Big Brother' from iconic 1984 ad - Page 3

Is this a joke!?!? Apple created a phone how they felt it should be created.. alot of people really liked it and CHOSE to buy it.

In what way does this compare to a totalitarian dictatorship which makes its decisions for people. I'll admit it was similarily lame when apple used this tactic in the 80's, but at least then people really had no choice apart from do it their way or go with out.

Now people have hundreds of choices for cellphones and choose.. again CHOOSE iPhone because they prefer what it offers.

Honestly, I like the people at google and usually respect and connect with the things they say.. but this was just retarded.

This is a common tactic of corporations and government figures in the US.. by trying to scare people into doing what they want with the big communist boggieman!! (or socialist or totalitarian) They're just words. People's lack of education on these words is what does the damage. Basically what Google is trying to acomplish here is tell people "Essentially if you buy an iPhone, that means you love Kim Yong Il."

I like Google, but people have more to fear of them then they ever will of Apple or even Microsoft. Their goal is to control or "manage" all the information in the world. Having one private company controlling my personal information is much scarier than not being able to play flash on a phone. Specially as how they were more than willing to go along with China's censorship requests in order to get a profit. They only pulled out once they were getting beat the the local search engine.

It really is Mac vs PC from the 80s all over again. That's not to say PC is better than Mac, but far more people will use PCs than Mac. Apple simply can't monopolize the entire market with their couple iPhone models.

That's just the reality of low-end products vs high-end products. The average consumer will take free/cheaper at the expense of quality no matter what.

Best example, I was walking by a cellular kiosk and overheard a customer asking about phones. The salesperson mentioned why the iPhone was better than another phone, and discussion ended like this:

Customer: Is it free?
Salesperson: No
Customer: Then I'm not interested

I find it funny how all these people are trying to bet Steve at his game, the only way these guys are going to win is to play their own game, if they think they will beat Apple in its own sand box they are mistaking.

What people do not realize is Steve does not care what others think of him, you will burn a friend in a minute if it means he gets what he wants. The only way I see Apple losing here is if they make a major misstep or they just piss off consumers. Right people do not care if apple controls it all, because it works and they all feel good about what they have, it is not a bad experience, unlike what apple was trying to portray in their 1984 video.

Apple's model is what is good for consumer is good for Apple not the other way around. In the case of Google is what is good for them is good for you.

Scared enough that they just unveiled a whole host of well thought out, new features for Android 2.2 and previewed for 2.3 that Apple has, for whatever reason, decided against doing at the current time. And from the demos, it looks like Google's implemintations aren't half-assed at all.

I'll leave you to watch the keynote for yourself to see these features and the demos. A lot of them were so simple in implementation that I was surprised Apple hadn't done them already.

And Asherian also said it well too.

At the same time, a Google exec said publicly that there's a problem with battery run time on Android phones - it's very low. He blamed developers whose apps let processes run when the apps are in the background. In other words, a bad multitasking system. This is Android's "openness" - the openness to let developers make battery-sucking apps. And this is even before Android phones get Flash.

If I were to guess, I think that Android will surpass iPhone OS in every area - phones, tablets, netbooks, STBs, automobile/emergency OSs, misc. handheld/palmtop devices - but I have no reliable crystal balls.

I fear you are right. Google is fast becoming the new Microsoft. But you can't fake what Apple does naturally. Google can copy and imitate much as Microsoft's Windows iterations have done over the years. But innovation, Apple style, cannot be cloned by multi-tentacled behemoths like Google or Microsoft. Google may sell more stuff in the end, but there will always be a strong market for the quality alternative Apple has consistently offered. When you have been using Apple products as long as I have (since 1984 as a matter of fact), you are not frightened by curves so much. They should be measured in decades, not quarters or years. The future decades will see many ups and downs for all companies involved currently.

Indeed, you can set up your own Google search for your own computer. It works incredibly well. Google Desktop. It is astounding, really.

Yes, but it's still Google's Google Search. They aren't giving anyone the source code so they can go set up Stevie's Search, which produces exactly the same results as Google's. They are a company based on proprietary software, and all this talk of openness from them is, as it is with Adobe, just a smokescreen intended to befuddle week minds.

No, you really can't, you can set up Google's Google Search service. Please, Google only tosses a few bones to open source now and then, says all the right things, but is as closed as closed gets when it really matters.

Nice. "Where it really matters". He'll never be able to pin you down now.

You can now claim that your original statement was correct, because it referred only to "where it really matters".

I would not go that far with comparison, but Google has some points as far as trend by Apple executives.

I am not really big fun of corporate managment behaviors. I'd rather quit from company than wait for promotions to get all the way between those individuals (I am sticking to pure engineering job). Also Apple and Google are the only companies that have really innovative managment that gets the point of modern world, but Apple is really unfreindly. It just that you need engineers with their traits and promote the best ideas at right time rather than have "your own way" and "constraining everybody to your way".

Maybe that's the reason Apple cannot really find its strong path to European market where nobody likes this behavior... that includes Microsoft ways as well.

"If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice," Gundotra said

This is about them to trying to own an ideological ideal that's easy to love. Google are trying to cast a commercial battle as something based on principle and some kind of open altruism that they contend that they champion. It's a fallacy of course. Don't let technical and other kinds of spokespeople kid you about the essence of this. It's business and they're on message.

I fear you are right. Google is fast becoming the new Microsoft. But you can't fake what Apple does naturally. Google can copy and imitate much as Microsoft's Windows iterations have done over the years. But innovation, Apple style, cannot be cloned by multi-tentacled behemoths like Google or Microsoft. Google may sell more stuff in the end, but there will always be a strong market for the quality alternative Apple has consistently offered. When you have been using Apple products as long as I have (since 1984 as a matter of fact), you are not frightened by curves so much. They should be measured in decades, not quarters or years. The future decades will see many ups and downs for all companies involved currently.

Apple is past the era where any Tom, Vic, or Harry can come and screw it. I don't care what Google comes up with, along as Apple is innovative enough to give great products, it will do well. I don't think Apple ever wanted to dominate the world anyway.

I like Google, but people have more to fear of them then they ever will of Apple or even Microsoft. Their goal is to control or "manage" all the information in the world. Having one private company controlling my personal information is much scarier than not being able to play flash on a phone. Specially as how they were more than willing to go along with China's censorship requests in order to get a profit. They only pulled out once they were getting beat the the local search engine.

I like Google's search, but not much else that I have used from them. I like the user experience and overall quality of everything that Apple has put out and have tried. Of course I am an "Apple Fan-boy" so take that into account. I am also a bit weary of how much Google is becoming ingrained into our everyday life, and how much information that they have.

The potential for abuse with all that information is immense and I have no doubt that the corporation will abuse that power to enrich themselves one day on a criminal level or at a level that creates the need for new regulation once the abuse is discovered.

Wow when you think one cannot go lower. It's too pathetic.
I mean using apple's "1984" marketing strategy?
Really ? Can't the filthy rich minds at google who are suppose to be the smartest come up with an original idea ?? What's next? A google version of apple tv? Oh wait...

Yeah this goes back a few years when MS was blasted for REQUIRING you to use Internet Explorer as your web browser because Windows just works better that way... Apple is doing the same thing with the iPod and iPhone......

Now before you blast me I am a HUGE Apple fan and will continue to use and buy their products. But c'mon people fair is fair.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by KindredMac

Apple is indeed the Big Brother of this generation. I have no problems saying that.

It all started with the iPod though, not as recently as the iPhone as Google is saying.

If you want to use an iPhone or iPad you NEED to use iTunes... You NEED an iTunes account. That right there is restricting. And what is Apple's reasoning behind this? "It just works better that way" is the usual response. Well I'm sure IBM thought the same way when they were considered the top dog.

But the funniest thing about this whole story is that this argument is coming from Google...

They are actually more of a threat to being the next Evil Empire. Hell they have been collecting data on people for years and when they get caught only reply with "Oops, our bad. Sorry."

What we have here is the basis of Capitalism. The reason for starting a business is to grow your business and make more money. Being the top dog SHOULD be your goal. So why is one business pointing fingers at another because they are successful??? A little bit of Marketing and a pinch of jealousy thrown in for good measure, that's why.

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

At the same time, a Google exec said publicly that there's a problem with battery run time on Android phones - it's very low. He blamed developers whose apps let processes run when the apps are in the background. In other words, a bad multitasking system. This is Android's "openness" - the openness to let developers make battery-sucking apps. And this is even before Android phones get Flash.

No idea what your post has to do with mine.

I never argued anything about "openness" or the battery performance. Just that Google showed off some new features in 2.2 that fall under the "why hasn't this been done already" category.

Some done so simply that you'd think you were looking at an Apple demo.

Work with Apple. Learn what is going on and why. Take it back and duplicate it.

Apple was not very smart here. Google had no where else to go in their minds. Who selects the Board of Directories anyway? And of what use are patients?

I think you have your story backwards... Apple visited Xerox and got their GUI/mouse ideas there. But you have to understand, what Apple did with their GUI was completely different than the direction Xerox was going. They were going to use it as a pointing device for applications, not be integrated as the primary input method for the OS. Similar to how drafting/CAD pointer pucks were later used.

If anything... Apple is Apple and Google is Microsoft. Apple showed their prototypes to Bill Gates and several other Microsoft employees to show off what they had done, and you know what they did with that.

Anyway... Google being on the board is not so strange. The companies were not direct competitors at the time. He served there for years. Once it be came clear they would be competitors, he did the right thing and resigned.

Did he take any knowledge with him? Unlikely. He obviously didn't realize that Apple's iPhone would be so revolutionary or he would have resigned long ago and Google wouldn't be playing catch up like they have been.

Google has been dying to find a niche so they are no longer a one trick pony. Try to look at this objectively... they are not innovators here. They are taking advantage of all the other cell phone companies fear of Apple... the cell manufacturers are basically begging them to come save them , but few people realzie that most of the sales are simply filling the vacuum that Microsoft has left completely open by their own phone OS failures. It's not Apple they're battling yet.

I believe so. Apple's not in this to be the biggest player, they're in this to make a ton of profit and make devices they like to use. They're not going anywhere, and iPhones will continue to be iPhones and loved by many, but people who think iPhones will be the dominant smartphone OS are probably delusional.

Of course, iPhone will be far, far more profitable than Android is. Depends what your intentions are. Profit vs openness.

This sudden 'openness' of Google comes as a bit of a shock to me. It sounds like they've found a very neat fig leaf indeed. Or is it a smokescreen?

I wonder what drives Google.. altruism? Dollars? My gut feeling is that Apple is quite a bit more honest about their intentions than good ol' Google.

Is this a joke!?!? Apple created a phone how they felt it should be created.. alot of people really liked it and CHOSE to buy it.

In what way does this compare to a totalitarian dictatorship which makes its decisions for people. I'll admit it was similarily lame when apple used this tactic in the 80's, but at least then people really had no choice apart from do it their way or go with out.

Now people have hundreds of choices for cellphones and choose.. again CHOOSE iPhone because they prefer what it offers.

Honestly, I like the people at google and usually respect and connect with the things they say.. but this was just retarded.

This is a common tactic of corporations and government figures in the US.. by trying to scare people into doing what they want with the big communist boggieman!! (or socialist or totalitarian) They're just words. People's lack of education on these words is what does the damage. Basically what Google is trying to acomplish here is tell people "Essentially if you buy an iPhone, that means you love Kim Yong Il."

I love how right after he says this, he walks past his open MacBook Pro.

Why is that surprising? Apple makes the best computers. And Google's never been ruthless like that. They work with everybody. Including their competitors. So why would they not use Macs? Heck, some of their online Android demos show functions (like the Wifi hotspot) work with a Mac. They even did a live demo of a Nexus One running as a hotspot providing a wifi connection to an iPad.

It's really the media and fanboys that play up the Apple-Google conflict. "OMG, can't believe he's using a Mac!" "oooooh the irony." Please.

It was a hilarious dig at the competition. Jobs does them during keynotes all the time. And they are funny then. I always thought his pictures of current smartphones when he launched the iPhone was most hilarious and a real solid dig at the Nokia crowd. It's just part of putting on a show and riling up the audience. Gundotra's comments were pretty funny on screen. But seems much more stark in print, of course.

It's too bad people play up the competition as a bad thing. It's a good thing for consumers. Both sides will work hard to get better products, which benefit all of us. And you'll also get choice. Don't like AT&T (or the iPhone exclusive carrier in your country)? Well now you can get decent phone on another network. It's not all or nothing. Imagine the iPhone having no market on the competition. People who don't like/want/use the iPhone exclusive carrier in their country would be forced into a terrible choice between their network and a really good phone. Conversely, I am willing to bet that competition from Android has probably advanced the iPhone's upgrade cycle by quite a bit. There are probably upgrades we'll see this year that Apple might have considered holding off for another year or two. I'd argue that it's the same for prices too. Because of competition, iPhone prices may come down faster. Who knows, maybe we'll see a BOGO deal on iPhones some day! Healthy competition benefits us all.

....
It really is Mac vs PC from the 80s all over again. That's not to say PC is better than Mac, but far more people will use PCs than Mac. Apple simply can't monopolize the entire market with their couple iPhone models.

While very similar and tend to agree, however, there might be some differences to consider.

In PC world then as is to day, its content creation and for a majority, microsoft office rules. Just no getting around that.

In smart phone/device world, there is not that 'must have' app. These devices won't or aren't content creators(yet). They are information reception devices. So, the most easy and secure may win out. Anything else... do on a PC/MAC. And the hardware/software integration experience does matter.

That said, Apple iphone OS has its work cut out for it. Android 2.2 packs a lot of features.

IMO - apple needs to improve file share and add print capability. Continue the performance and batt improvements. Some free 'cloud' and wireless sync(at least with host computer over wifi) ability would be good. And yes, keep it simple for the rest of us non-techies.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

Are you comparing on US market or global? You know US market is a small yard comparing to global.

This is the same as saying that AT&T is second or first and T-Mobile is small. In the USA it is, but in the world At&T does not count and it does not approach to size and scale of T-Mobile that runs its own networks and also owns many small GSM operators known under different names. That's why I stick to T-Mobile as a foreigner living in the USA, but traveling a bit.

Yes, but it's still Google's Google Search. They aren't giving anyone the source code so they can go set up Stevie's Search, which produces exactly the same results as Google's. They are a company based on proprietary software, and all this talk of openness from them is, as it is with Adobe, just a smokescreen intended to befuddle week minds.

Ah. So now it is "based on". That is very different from your original comment.

... It's really the media and fanboys that play up the Apple-Google conflict. ...

Well, no, it's actually Google that is playing it up. Using the Big Lie and accusing the competition of the sins which it itself is the most guilty of. It's pure propaganda from Google, trying to shape the perceived truth to its own ends.

This is a common tactic of corporations and government figures in the US.. by trying to scare people into doing what they want with the big communist boggieman!! (or socialist or totalitarian) .

Political parties also engage in this boogeyman strategy. Note that two entities often use each other as PR boogeymen, while simultaneously cooperating behind the scenes to preserve and advance their power over smaller rivals(e.g. political "bipartisanship", international trade agreements, Jobs and Schmidt playing footsie at the coffee shop). The name calling in public is just part of the courtly dance they do.